Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (1978) Cited 4,533 times 20 Legal AnalysesHolding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."
Adams v. California Dept
487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 966 timesHolding that separate federal statutes "establish[ing] distinct rights enforceable by litigants" are not alone sufficient to differentiate prior and later filed actions
Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service
399 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 674 timesHolding that "parallel legal interests alone, identical or otherwise, are not sufficient to establish privity"
Single Chip Systems Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp.
495 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (S.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 86 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding privity "even if the named parties differ"
In re Intl Nutronics, Inc.
28 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 127 timesHolding that non-core claims not raised in bankruptcy proceeding were barred by res judicata because they could have been asserted, which is enough for res judicata purposes, even if the bankruptcy court could not have rendered a final decision
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 100,141 times 680 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37